Silicon Valley is a hotbed of innovation, and anyone starting a business needs access to the latest scientific discoveries. Indeed, all taxpayers should be entitled to see the results of federally funded research that could save their lives, enhance energy and national security and improve environmental quality. Greater public access is a public good.

At the same time, the public should demand that the information be rigorously vetted to certify its accuracy and quality. Peer review serves that purpose. It uses scientific experts to detect weaknesses in a submitted manuscript, such as unsubstantiated conclusions and inaccurate or incomplete data analysis. It validates and sharpens papers before they are published, ensuring that readers have reliable, coherent scientific information. Most scientists value peer review so highly they regard it as a professional responsibility to help make it work. For example, in 2011, about 35,000 scientists voluntarily assisted the American Physical Society -- the nation's largest organization of physicists and one of the world's premier scientific publishers -- with the manuscript review process.

Advertisement

But the Federal Research Public Access Act would put scientific peer review at great risk. It would require government agencies to make scientific journal articles based on federally funded research available for free online access. In a recent Capitol Hill hearing, several members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, suggested that the value of public access may be so great that it should be mandated now.

But there would be a consequence: Free distribution would destroy the subscription base that finances the peer review process.

Modern research is so complex that manuscripts can be opaque even to scientists, except for experts in the field of study. Non-experts rely on peer review vetting to assure them they can use the published results with confidence.

As helpful as this is for the scientific reader, it is essential for the layperson. Just as a patient relies on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's review to ensure that medicines are safe and effective, the public should demand that published research has a scientific stamp of approval on it.

But peer review doesn't come without cost. Highly trained editors with Ph.D.s manage the vetting process of the exceedingly technical manuscripts. Editors and publishers also manage their final composition, hyperlinking text, archiving the articles and disseminating the journals.

To cover these costs, the society requires colleges and other research institutions to pay subscription fees because they derive a material benefit from the product. The publications enable them to carry out their missions — education, discovery, innovation and product development.

At the same time, scientific publishers should be exploring ways to provide greater public access to their journals. The society has been doing so. Two years ago, it opened up its journals to the public. Today, it provides free on-site access at public libraries to every article it has ever published, starting in 1893. More than 500 libraries have signed up, including the Library of Congress. We also provide high schools with complimentary subscriptions to encourage students to consider science careers.

The society allows authors to post their manuscripts on their websites and to pay a fee if they wish to have their article freely available on an open archive. Finally, attuned to a public that has embraced iTunes, the society recently began offering inexpensive downloads of its journal articles anywhere in the world.

The American Physical Society attempts to balance the necessity of peer-review with the public's right to access the results of federally funded research. Congress should consider legislation that encourages all scientific publishers to explore ways to strike the proper balance.

M.R. Beasley is vice president of the American Physical Society. He wrote this for this newspaper.